NRECA Reliability Online Study

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "NRECA Reliability Online Study"

Dulcie Stevenson
5 years ago
Views:

1 NRECA Reliability Online Study Survey Results June,

2 Methodology/Response Rate 262 respondents participated in the reliability study (compared to 231 in and 299 in 2004). As in the past years, the study was conducted online. For reporting purposes, percentages are based on total responding to that question. Notification was placed on Cooperative.com alerting CEOs and key staff that the study was being conducted. Overall response rate was 38.9%. (28% in and 36% in 2004). A total of 743 distribution cooperatives key Engineering and Operations staff names were included in the initial sample (based on NRECA s database) messages were returned undeliverable, making 673 the total number of respondents receiving an invitation to participate. -- Three reminder notifications were ed to respondents asking for their participation.

3 Outages -- Tracking

4 Interruption Types Tracked by Cooperative 75% Only Sustained 76% 80% Only Momentary 1% % Both Momentary & Sustained 23% 20% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

5 Information Recorded When Tracking Outages (Multiple Responses Possible) Top 8 Graphed Cause of interruption Length of interruption Date of interruption Time interruption began (from call from member) # of customers affected Time of total restoration of power Affected substation 99% 99% 96% 98% 98% 96% 99% 99% 95% 97% 97% 93% 96% 97% 92% 88% 94% 90% 86% 88% 83% 2004 Affected protective device 67% 68% 69% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

6 Information Recorded When Tracking Outages (Multiple Responses Possible) Bottom 8 Graphed Phase identification 71% 68% Partial restoration of power 56% 58% 54% Weather conditions 54% 53% 52% Resolved/needs additional work # of Customer calls received 28% 59% 54% 46% 38% 42% 2004 Key accounts affected 14% 29% 32% Time interruption began (from SCADA) Affected pole 30% 26% 34% 26% 25% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

7 Primary Method of Receiving Outage Information If Use OMS: Method by Which Interruptions Are Entered Into System (Multiple Responses Possible) Tel. call to live personpaper outage report 44% Manually by Coop (during outage) Telephone or Computer Based IVR 47% 57% 73% 72% Tel. call to live persondata entered 33% Call Center Manually (after outage) 44% 40% 33% Telephone call to AVR system 18% Manually - Third Party (during outage) 30% SCADA system 2% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% SCADA Down Line Distribution Devices 9% 8% 6% 12% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

8 Interruption Tracking Method Used 59% Feeder/Circuit 66% 67% System Wide 30% 30% 33% % Other/Combination 4% 3% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%

9 Co-op Publicizes Its Reliability Reports 22% Yes 25% 23% 74% No 68% 73% Don't Generate A Report 4% 4% 7% % 20% 40% 60% 80%

10 Outages -- Sustained

11 Co-op's Definition of Sustained Interruption in Terms of Time > 1 Minute 41% 43% 43% > 3 Minutes 12% 16% 13% > 5 Minutes 31% 27% 33% 2004 When Crew/Action Is Needed 4% 5% 4% When Member Calls In 2% 3% 5% Not Defined 2% 1% 2% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%

12 How Co-op Defines Major Storm or Major Event RUS Definition 25% 28% 34% Power Out for Over 24 Hours** 9% 12% 2004 % of Customers Out of Power 9% 12% 13% Exceeds System Design Limits** 2% 8% # of Customers Out of Power IEEE 1366 Definition 1% 9% 8% 6% 5% 5% Other Means: Management decision, declared storm, # of substations affected, combination of methods Co-op Uses Other Means 19% 23% 28% Co-op Does Not Define Major Storm/Event 16% 15% 14% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% ** Not a choice in 2004

13 Indices Used To Track Co-op Statistics (Multiple Responses Possible) SAIDI (System Average Interruption Duration Index) - RUS Method 81% 85% 82% SAIFI (System Average Interruption Frequency Index) 40% 49% 54% CAIDI (Customer Avg Interruption Duration Index) 43% 47% 53% 2004 CAIFI (Customer Avg Interruption Frequency Index) 5% 10% 17% CTAIDI (Customer Total Avg Interruption Duration Index) 6% 5% 15% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

14 Index Responses SAIDI (System Average Interruption Duration Index RUS Method) 2004 # Reporting An Amount Average # Minutes Reported Breakout of Responses: 50 minutes or less 45% 35% 15% minutes 20% 30% 36% minutes 16% 17% 22% Over 180 minutes 19% 18% 15% 25 th Percentile 2.7 minutes Median 68.9 minutes 75 th Percentile minutes

15 Index Responses CAIDI (Customer Average Interruption Duration Index) 2004 # Reporting An Amount Average # Minutes Reported Breakout of Responses: 30 minutes or less 34% 26% 12% minutes 6% 15% 12% minutes 21% 17% 31% minutes 18% 19% 18% Over 120 minutes 20% 24% 17% 25 th Percentile 2.5 minutes Median 72.5 minutes 75 th Percentile minutes

16 Index Responses SAIFI (System Average Interruption Frequency Index) 2004 # Reporting An Amount Avg # Interruptions/Customer Breakout of Responses:.10 interruptions or less 15% 15% 18% interruptions 25% 20% 26% interruptions 18% 22% 22% interruptions 26% 20% 17% Over 2.50 interruptions 17% 23% 16% 25 th Percentile 0.69 interruptions Median 1.26 interruptions 75 th Percentile 2.06 interruptions

17 Index Responses CTAIDI (Customer Total Average Interruption Duration Index) 2004 # Reporting An Amount Average # Minutes Reported Breakout of Responses: 10.0 minutes or less 48% 39% 24% minutes 4% 4% 6% minutes 24% 25% 20% Over minutes 24% 32% 24% 25 th Percentile 1.62 minutes Median minutes 75 th Percentile minutes

18 Index Responses CAIFI (Customer Average Interruption Frequency Index) 2004 # Reporting An Amount Average # Interruptions Breakout of Responses: 1.00 interruptions or less 61% 64% 80% Over 1.00 interruptions 39% 36% 20% 25 th Percentile 0.03 interruptions Median 0.07 interruptions 75 th Percentile 1.33 interruptions

19 Report Interruptions in Minutes or Hours Hours 62% Hours 61% Minutes 36% Minutes 39%

20 Outages -- Momentary

21 Co-op Track Momentary Interruptions 30% 25% 24% 20% 18% 15% 13% 10% 5% 0% Yes 2004

22 Co-op's Definition of Momentary Interruption in Terms of Time < 1 Minute 60% 64% 75% < 3 Minutes < 5 Minutes 4% 2% 7% 18% 14% 14% 2004 (n=50) (n=54) (n=28) Other 10% 14% 18% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80%

23 Co-op's Method of Capturing Momentary Events (Multiple Responses Possible) Trip and reclose sequence with no lockout 46% 61% Individual trip and reclose events 46% 54% Customer call-in AMR system 41% 36% 31% 32% (n=54) (n=28) Other 7% 9% Asked of those who track momentary events 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%

24 Power Quality

25 50% Co-op Records Voltage Deviations At Substation Bus 46% 43% 40% 37% 30% 20% 10% 0% Yes 2004

26 Indexing Methods Used (Multiple Responses Possible) 78% No Index Used 78% 69% ITIC (Formerly CBEMA) 8% 7% 6% 2004 SARFI (System Avg RMS Variation Freq Index) 1% 2% 3% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

27 Regularly Record Total Harmonic Distortion (THD) Levels Anywhere on System 13% Where Problem Suspected IF YES: Where? (Multiple Responses Possible) Not asked in % 52% Yes 9% 69% 9% Substation 36% 34% Yes, Only Where Suspect Problems Not an option in % 21% % Revenue Meter Distribution Transformer 36% 28% 20% 12% 13% 49% 2004 (n=35) (n=69) No 68% 70% Other 6% 3% 8% (n=64) 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80%

28 Power Restoration After an Interruption

29 100% Cooperative Has a Written Emergency Interruption Restoration Plan 80% 86% 81% 86% 60% 40% 20% 0% Wording in 2004 Co-op has major storm, event or catastrophe outage restoration plan Yes 2004

30 Co-op Has Written Mutual Assistance Agreement (Multiple Responses Possible) Neighboring Cooperatives 58% 62% Neighboring Utilities 20% 21% Statewide Association 16% 18% Contractors 2% 2% In 2004, 81% of responding systems reported having a written mutual assistance agreement 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%

31 Cooperative Have a SCADA System 60% 50% 51% 53% 54% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Yes 2004

32 15% Cooperative Implemented An Automated Monitoring System Beyond Typical SCADA to Review Momentary/Sustained Interruptions 12% 11% 11% 10% 5% 0% Yes 2004

33 50% Cooperative Provides 24-Hour Interruption Dispatch 40% 42% 41% 39% 35% 34% ** % used 3 rd Party Service (not broken out) 30% 23% 22% 20% 10% 5% 3% 3% 0% Yes - At the Co-op Yes - 3rd Party Spec. In Utilities Yes - 3rd Party Answering Service No 2004

34 Prevention

35 Interruption Prevention Plans Cooperative Has Implemented (Multiple Responses Possible) Tree trimming 82% 93% 91% Lightning arresters Animal/squirrel guards Line patrol 74% 73% 71% 85% 83% 84% 81% 86% 81% Grounding improvement 50% 60% 2004 Consumer education 50% 58% Covered jumper wires 51% 48% 45% Converted overhead to underground 29% 29% 25% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

36 Causes of Interruptions (Average Percentage Reported) Weather 33% Power Supply 13% Equipment 11% Animals 7% Public 4% Planned 4% Maintenance 4% Unknown 7% Other 16% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35%

37 What is Classified As A Power Supply Interruption For Majority of System (Multiple Responses Possible) Transmission Lines 51% 64% Transmission/High Side portion of substations 51% 51% Distribution/Low Side of dist. substations 14% 19% None of These 7% 7% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%

38 Co-op's Primary Motivation for Improving Its Reliability System Customer satisfaction 85% 86% 91% Board est. minimums for performance index 7% 6% 4% Department performance goals Avoidance of negative PR 3% 2% 3% 3% 3% 2% 2004 Regulatory organization 1% 1% 1% Other 1% 1% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

39 Percentage of Annual Budget for Interruption Prevention For Tree Trimming Means: 2004 = 32.6% = 35.9% = 36.1% 5% or less 23% 26% 27% 5.1% % 25.1% % 21% 19% 23% 21% 28% 27% % % Over 75% 10% 14% 15% 17% 15% 15% No Response % 35% 41% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% Percentages graphed are based on those responding.

40 Type(s) of Maintenance Program Cooperative Applies To Its System (Multiple Responses Possible) Preventive Maintenance 78% 90% 87% Reactive Maintenance Predictive Maintenance 47% 41% 41% 40% 38% 36% 2004 Proactive Maintenance 24% 28% 28% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

41 System Operation

42 50% Cooperative Utilizes Flicker Standards for Residential Designs 40% 38% 40% 41% 30% 20% 10% 0% Yes 2004

43 100% Have Regular Visual Inspection Plan for System IF YES: Over What Period of Time? 80% 82% 83% 79% 12 Months or Less 42% 44% 41% 60% Months 13% 20% 19% 40% 20% Months Months 16% 14% 16% 13% 11% 12% 2004 (n=227) (n=176) (n=170) 0% Yes 2004 Over 60 Months 14% 12% 13% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%

44 Sample Profile

45 40% Subject to Regulation by State/Public Service Commission 40% Report Power Outages to State/Public Service Commission 30% 28% 30% 26% % 23% 26% 22% 20% 20% 10% 10% 0% 0% Yes Yes

46 50% Co-op Subject To Regulation by State/PUC 40% 30% 26% 22% 20% 10% 0% I II III IV V VI VII VIII IX X TOTAL Regulated by State/PUC Report Outages To State/PUC

47 Cooperative Coincident Peak Load Mean: 2004=15,176 MW =13,225 MW =17,653 MW 44% 75 MW or Less 45% 46% 22% MW 23% % MW 17% 17% 19% No Response Over 500 MW 15% 15% 19% % 12% 24% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% Percentages graphed are based on those responding.

48 Number of Customers Per Mile of Distribution Line 20% Under % % 30% % 28% 25% % 28% No Response Over % 25% 26% % 12% 23% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% Percentages graphed are based on those responding.

49 Load Breakout 20% Urban 6% 6% In 2004, Suburban was not asked as a category No Response: % 14% 24% Suburban 13% 15% Rural 80% 80% 79% % 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Percentages graphed are based on those responding.

50 Percentage of Line that Is Overhead Means: % - 81% - 82% 75% or Less 27% 30% 32% No Response % 10% 21% 76% - 90% 30% 29% 30% % Over 90% 39% 40% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% Percentages graphed are based on those responding.

51 15% Survey Respondent Composition as Compared To National NRECA Region Breakout 10% 5% 0% I II III IV V VI VII VIII IX X Reliability Study Nationwide Population

52 Survey Respondent Composition as Compared To National NRECA Breakout -- Number of Consumers Served -- 5,000 or Less 5,001-10,000 18% 17% 16% 20% 23% 22% 24% 23% 2004 Study Study Study 10,001-20,000 23% 23% 22% 27% National Sample 20,001-40,000 18% 25% 23% 22% Over 40,000 11% 11% 15% 16% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30%

53 Survey Respondent Composition as Compared To National NRECA Breakout -- Three Year Growth Rate % Or Less 22% 26% 26% 29% 1.01% % 29% 32% 34% 38% 2.01% % Over 3.00% 26% 19% 21% 17% 23% 23% 20% 16% 2004 Study Study Study National Sample 0% 10% 20% 30% 40%

News from the Oklahoma Corporation Commission Matt Skinner, Public Information Phone: (405) , FAX: (405)

News from the Oklahoma Corporation Commission Matt Skinner, Public Information Phone: (405) 521-4180, FAX: (405) 521-6945 m.skinner@occemail.com April 28, 2006 KEEPING THE LIGHTS ON New Commission reliability